cgs_journal_clubfandomcom-20200214-history
Frontiers in Psychology - August 2018
I believe I'm listed as covering Frontiers in Comparative Psych, but there were a couple of interest from "Cognition" and "Emotion Science" sections I thought I would throw in as well: Comparative: Mizunami, M., Terao, K., & Alvarez, B. (2018). Application of a Prediction Error Theory to Pavlovian Conditioning in an Insect. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1272. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01272''' Here’s one that looks at associative learning in invertebrates (crickets). Starts off with a brief overview of prediction error theories for mammalian Pavlovian conditioning that account for blocking effects (stimulus X is paired with an unconditioned stimulus US, which blocks the association of novel stimulus Y with US after a phase in which stim X and stim Y are presented together and reinforced by US such that when stim Y is presented alone animals do not respond/have failed to learn that association). Blocking effects were shown for an experiment with crickets, and the results aligned most with the Rescorla-Wagner model, which assumes that the amount of learning is determined by the discrepancy between the strength of the actual US and total strengths of the predicted US by all the CSs (if stim X fully predicts US, stim Y is blocked). Cognition: Ortells, J. J., De Fockert, J. W., Romera, N., & Fernández, S. (2018). Expectancy-Based Strategic Processes Are Influenced by Spatial Working Memory Load and Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1239. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01239''' The goal of the study was to see whether the effects on WM load on a Stroop task are domain general or domain specific. They used a non-verbal WM task to see whether it would affect a verbal Stroop task, and thus suggest that the role of WM is domain-general. Participants’ individual working memory capacities were assessed using a change detection task. Then, in two experiments, were given two different non-verbal, spatial working memory tasks. For each task there was a condition that required low WM load and one that required high WM load. When participants were under high WM load, they showed a standard Stroop effect (they were unable to ignore the incongruence of the prime). Under low WM there was a reversed Stroop effect for individuals that had a higher working memory capacity. Emotion Science: '' 'Figueira, J. S. B., Pacheco, L. B., Lobo, I., Volchan, E., Pereira, M. G., de Oliveira, L., & David, I. A. (2018). “Keep That in Mind!” The Role of Positive Affect in Working Memory for Maintaining Goal-Relevant Information. ''Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1228. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01228''' Positive affect as a stable personality trait is positively correlated with working memory capacity, even when neutral or unpleasant emotional states are induced. Working memory was assessed using an event-related potential, contralateral delay activity (CDA). Emotional states were induced by showing participants either intact bodies (neutral) or mutilated bodies (unpleasant). Affect was evaluated using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedules. Participants were then run on a change detection task in which they either attended to an array or two squares or four squares (with one square changing color in 50% of the trials after a retention interval). CDA increased more for individuals with higher trait positive affect when they switched from the two to four square arrays (i.e. those with high trait positive affect had greater WM capacity). 'Berdica, E., Gerdes, A. B. M., Bublatzky, F., White, A. J., & Alpers, G. W. (2018). Threat vs. Threat: Attention to Fear-Related Animals and Threatening Faces. ''Frontiers in ''Psychology, 9, 1154.'' https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01154''' Researchers showed participants that were either afraid of spiders, socially anxious, or non-anxious pairs of images from four categories: spiders, butterflies, angry faces, and neutral faces. The goal here was to assess how different classes of threatening stimuli compete for attention since these studies typically only look at one kind of stimuli. In general, unpleasant photos (spiders and angry faces) initially capture participants attention compared to neutral images (butterflies and neutral faces). The more afraid of spiders one was, the stronger the effect when looking at spiders. However, for socially anxious participants there was no preference to look first at either spiders or angry faces, but neutral faces were looked at more quickly than a nonsocial neutral stimulus, butterflies.